M
Mikeoffaith
Guest
Amen to that Jon!
- Status
M
Mikeoffaith
Guest
I must be missing something, but I don’t see much of a difference in the list between 393 and 397, but I see a big difference between 382 and 393/397. So what happened to the books that were infallibly in the canon in 382 and then infallibly left out in 393/397?
M
Mikeoffaith
Guest
This last Sunday, we had a reading from Sirach.I’m not sure how often you go to a Catholic mass, but I have heard readings from Sirach, Wisdom, and one or another of the Maccabees at one time or another. Granted, they don’t show up all that often, but occassionally. However, in all fairness, consider ALL the books in the entire canon, particularly the OT since they are usually (though not always) put in the place of the OT reading (1st reading of the day), and it’s easy to see why only 7 books out of however many other OT books there are that Protestants use (46 Catholic books including the DC), are not used as often as the other 39 throughout the liturgical year.
Welcome back, Mike. May God bless you in your search. I was involved in our search for a pastor a few years ago. We were fortunate, as a small parish, to receive from the seminary a fine young pastor.
It isn’t necessarily a paradox, in that Dad spoke of liberal and conservative in two different ways - political and theologically. I think one can be politically liberal and be very conservative, confessionally, and vice versa.
As to your larger point, that the leadership reflects the pew population, my honest response is that would be a discouraging reality, at least for my desire to see the ELCA move back toward a more confessional stance as a synod.
Jon
A
Augsburg1530
Guest
I don’t use the term Apocrypha myself precisely because it is offensive to Catholics. Though it should be pointed out that Jerome was the first to use the title to denote those books.I guess this is partially what I was getting at. The Apocrypha and the DC ***ARE ***distinct, and should not be confused with each other. When one refers to both as “Apocrypha” it’s a train wreck waiting to happen. Again, although Esdra may have known that fact, and maybe even SOME other Protestants (that there are 2 “Apocrypha’s” according to Protestants), I’m not sure that all the people who view these posts do. I think that is a consideration when posting. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, Esdras. I actually did learn something from yours.
Oh, and BTW, MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL, AND TO ALL…well, you know…
By the way, for Lutherans here who use CPH’s Lutheran Study Bible, a companion is being published next year which will finally reintroduce the deuterocanon to Lutheran Bibles.
A
Augsburg1530
Guest
Yep, it will be. It’s more or less the “official” translation of the LCMS.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Despite me not recognizing the Lutheran Eucharist and that because I am Catholic, I agree that Lutheran and Catholic belief in the Real Presence is very close. I am tempted to say that they are actually the same and that’s why in this subject we find the Lutherans more than any other Christians that become close spokesmen for us; sometimes a valuable ally that gives moral support to us!
I think it’s the pride that prevents you guys from accepting the term transubstantiation because how you describe the changes; it is actually what transubstantiation is. Not to mention on the other side that we have our pride too. Jon was saying earlier on that changes does not equal ‘becomes’ (paraphrase) but I don’t know how else it be if it does not ‘become’ – from the bread and wine to the Body and Blood.
Transubstantiation is the changes from the bread and the wine to the substance of the Lord’s body and blood. You agree that this happen after the pronunciation by the celebrant, which we call the Consecration, “This is my Body …” that at that moment the changes takes place. You would agree that before the consecration, it was still bread and wine. And after the consecration it is still bread and wine in everything except the ‘substance’ of the bread and wine that change to the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ. Substance is something we cannot see unlike the accidents (bread and wine) which we can see, touch and taste. So basically everything is the same between Lutheran and Catholic belief, unless I misunderstand what have been explained by you (or Jon) here.
Of course from purely my Catholic belief, I am not saying that Lutherans can have valid transubstantiation. I am only limiting this to the understanding of Real Presence from both sides on this subject. It’s perhaps because we don’t consider your Eucharist as valid that Lutherans don’t consider accepting the term transubstantiation, I don’t know. But that may just as well, as it can complicate things further.
God bless.
E
Esdra
Guest
Interesting, I didn’t know that in the Lutheran Church the deuterocanonicals are read in service!
L
Lampo
Guest
Is the following an accurate presentation of the Lutheran belief of consubstantiation?
Consubstantiation - In addition to bread & wine, Christ becomes present and then no longer is present after the service.
Transubstantiation - The bread and wine are actually transformed into Jesus’ body and blood. Just like He said, “This *is *my body…This *is *my blood.”
I remember transubstantiation this way: S - C - A - R
Substance
Change
Accidents
Remain
Jesus didn’t say, “This *contains *my body & blood.”
Consubstantiation - In addition to bread & wine, Christ becomes present and then no longer is present after the service.
Transubstantiation - The bread and wine are actually transformed into Jesus’ body and blood. Just like He said, “This *is *my body…This *is *my blood.”
I remember transubstantiation this way: S - C - A - R
Substance
Change
Accidents
Remain
Jesus didn’t say, “This *contains *my body & blood.”
M
Mikeoffaith
Guest
Thanks for the well wishes in our search. It’s going to be a long journey. Our bishop has asked us to wait at least six months, the congregation needs some healing, since we actually had to remove our pastor through congregational vote.
If he polity of the church is faithful to it’s ideal then there can’t be any other explanation. I would like to think that the people chosen by the congregations to represent them at synod assembly and those selected by the synod assembly to represent them at national are representative of the pew population. People need to remember that it just isn’t the Church Council that is running the show. And in matters especially in regards to policy that the Church Council can’t act just in it’s own right. As regards to the doings of the National Assembly this past year, I am somewhat ambivalent. And when it comes to policy, I sometimes feel somewhat removed from whatever happens in Chicago vs what ever the reality is in my own local community and congregation.
Reuben,
You always speak with such charity without compromising your firm convictions. It is from this perspective that true unity can eventually occur.
Not pride, Reuben, though we like all sinners are guilty of that, but from the words of Christ, who does not go into the kinds of details that transubstantiation does. I am willing to say that, by Christ’s words, the bread and wine “become” the true and substantial body and blood of Christ, without making a claim as to know the disposition of the physical elements of the bread and wine. Moreover, this would be the same statement we would make regarding consubstantiation, because consubstantiation requires a similar claim.
Yes.
Yes, without making the claim I mentioned above.
I would hope neither side would be so apparantly petty in this matter. From a Catholic perspective, without apostolic succession, Lutheran pastors lack the ordination necessary to confect the consecration. This is a standing belief, and should not be considered petty.
From our standpoint, Transubstantiation lacks scriptural explicitness. It has been the stance since the confessions, and shouldn’t be thought to have origins in pettiness.
But beyond this, here is an interesting quote from a joint Lutheran/Catholic document regarding our differing perspectives:
prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_eucharist.html
and may His blessings be with you also.
Jon
A
Augsburg1530
Guest
“It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.”
We would reject the term consubstantiation for much the same reason we reject the term transubstantiation. Both are attempts to philosophically explain how Christ is present and yet to appearance remain bread and wine. (Consubstantiation was first used by a Reformed theologian to try and explain the Lutheran view. It was never used by our churches)
As regards the words of Christ, He said is and not contains because He was simply describing what it was He was instituting, not giving a metaphysical definition.
No, Lampo, He didn’t, and therefore we don’t believe “this contains”. So, to your first sentence, "Is the following an accurate presentation of the Lutheran belief of consubstantiation?", we reject consubstantiation. As I said in the post above, consubstantiation requires one to make a claim regarding the disposition of the elements of the bread and wine, and we make no such claim. We simply say that, by the words of institution spoken by the pastor and the power of the Holy Spirit, the bread is His body, and the wine is His blood. How this happens is a mystery, as Christ went into no further details to his disciples, and Paul similarly so.
In the words of John of Damascus: “… if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit”
Jon
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Thanks Jon for the explanation. I am perfectly content with it and the joint Lutheran/Catholic document # 48-51, especially #51 is very encouraging. It could not be said any otherwise and thus have to admit the diffferences between the two positions on this subject respectively, and yet we both believe nearly about the same thing. I am happy that the document acknowledges Catholic’s belief in transubstantiation and is respectful about it, and the reason for Lutherans being unable to accept it.
May the continued blessing of the Lord be upon us always.
L
Lampo
Guest
The word transubstantiation doesn’t attempt to explain *how *this happens. It’s a word to show *what *happens.
Instead of saying, “The bread is no longer bread, but it is Christ’s body. The wine is no longer wine, but it is Christ’s blood.”, the Church says transubstantiation. Similar reasons for the term hypostatic union.
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
I am curious what your research showed about this.
L
Lampo
Guest
I haven’t p(name removed by moderator)ointed Jimmy’s response yet. Still looking. Until then, let me ask. Would you assert that the canon of scripture was a fallible determination?
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
If the Catholic standard of infallibility is “the pope teaching in union with all the bishops” then I would say these “councils” (Rome, Hippo and Carthage, if I recall the earlier post) fall very far short of the Catholic standard–but I guess that would be an in-house discussion for Catholics. (What I’m saying is that it seems to me that EVEN by standards internal to the Catholic Church, they don’t qualify as infallible. But not being Catholic, you can correct me on this if I’m misstating the Catholic position on what constitutes an infallible teaching.) I think a restatement of the Roman Catholic canon at Trent further supports that the bishops at Trent didn’t think they were infallible either, since (as far as I know) the decrees don’t even refer to or acknowledge these earlier decisions.
The majority of Christians of the time (ie., non-Roman: Byzantine and the Churches of the East) apparently didn’t accept the decisions of Rome, Hippo and Carthage–if they were even aware of them–but I think it’s reasonable to think they probably were not. If they by some chance they did know about such decisions, then it’s clear that the patriarchs, bishops and the faithful in the Byzantine Church and the Churches of the East rejected such decisions or simply ignored them, since they had biblical canons that differed from the Roman church.
- Status